July 27, 2005

Words Mean Things

The Bush Administration is starting to use a new phrase in their battle against Islamist terrorists. The "global war on terror" has been replaced with "global struggle against violent extremism." Not only is this even less elegant than the GWoT it's also less meaningful. On Sep. 11, 2001 the U.S. was attacked by terrorists followers of Islamist ideology. It wasn't simply followers of Islam who attacked us. It was a totalitarian ideology that piggy-backed onto that religion. President Bush started using GWoT for diplomatic reasons; he didn't want to offend slow-thinking Muslims who would turn our nation's struggle into a clash of religions and the rise of American imperialism. Critics did it anyway so Bush's strategem failed. He would have been better off verbally targeting Islamists from the start.

"Global war on terrorism" implied the U.S. would go beyond Islamists. Groups like the IRA and the Basque separatists in Spain also are terrorists, but the U.S. has done nothing to stop them. The war's focus has been on toppling the Taliban in Afghanistan, finding Osama bin Laden, and liberating Iraq. All involve Muslims and Islamists. So the term GWoT was politically correct spin.

Another problem with the GWoT is terrorism is a means to an end. We're fighting an end. That is an ideology that wants us to convert to Islam, follow strict Islamic law, or die. Since terrorism has been around since Man first discovered ways to terrorize each other at the begining of time the war against a means will never end. That doesn't bode well for limited government. A state of permanent war isn't viable. Either the public will tire of the hyperbolic rhetoric or government will harden its grasp.

Getting even more vague and now calling the Islamist War a "global struggle against violent extremism" robs our efforts of even more seriousness. When the U.S. was attacked Islamists declared war on the U.S. Now, our government wants to play nice and go after "violent extremism." Yes, Gen. Myers is correct that victory in this war will require "all instruments of our national power, all instruments of the international communities' national power." But that was the case when opposing the Soviets and international Communism. Economic vitality, alliances, and culture we used to win the Cold War. Oddly back then, Republicans weren't afraid to call that conflict a "war." It was communist-sympathizing Leftists who bashed Cold Warriors (both Democrats and Republicans) for increasing tensions with the Soviets with such harsh words as "evil empire."

Language is vital. Words mean things. We must call as spade a "spade." Knowing who is our enemy will help lead us to victory. Otherwise we'll be flailing away just waiting to get sucker punched again.

"U.S. Officials Retool Slogan for Terror War" [via The Corner]